That's an interesting argument but I think it oversimplifies the problem a bit too much. While Christiannity is indeed a missionary faith that will always try to bolster its numbers, there is nothing in the sacred texts that actually calls for military expansion. I also don't see how it demands glorious feats more than any other religion on the planet: acting for the glory of (the) God(s) isn't really something that I see particularly limited to Christiannity. Last but not least, Christiannity didn't expand only through military conquests: there were also people that willingly converted. In fact, a good deal of Europe was converted this way after Kings adopted Christiannity. The same way, I don't really see anything in Hinduism that could prevent military expansion: as a matter of fact, there were several empires and kindgoms that rose and expanded in India, which means warfare was certainly not absent.
The only thing I could give this argument is that Hinduism is more of a local religion (I don't think there are many Hindus outside of India) while Christiannity is more prone to proselytism: because of this, Christians are more likely to seek to expand their religion and bring in new converts peacefully or violently than Hindus are. But I think it's only one small factor in a myriad of others. There probably were ways for India to dominate the world while keeping Hinduism as the main religion and there probably were others factors than Christiannity that played a part in Europe's domination over the world.